Sunday 24 March 2024
Michael Behe holds court.
Michael Behe: A Mousetrap for Darwin
On a classic episode of ID the Future, host Eric Anderson interviews biochemist Michael Behe about his book A Mousetrap for Darwin. In this episode, Behe explains that he was spurred to build this collection of essays by a review in the journal Science claiming he had never answered his critics on key points. That annoyed Behe, because he had, multiple times. A Mousetrap for Darwin compiles more than a hundred of his responses, some of them from difficult-to-access places. The book also contains fresh material from Dr. Behe, including some lively behind-the-scenes details about his interactions with colleagues and critics.
In this episode, the Lehigh University biochemist answers misconceptions about irreducible complexity, responds to the claim that “molecular machines” is a misnomer, relates the surprising confessions some of his fellow biologists have made outside the spotlight about evolutionary theory, and offers his appraisal of why scientists in general don’t know what’s going on with studies in evolution or intelligent design. Behe remains optimistic, though. “You can’t deny the data forever,” he says. Download the podcast or listen to it here
Saturday 23 March 2024
Friday 22 March 2024
Matthew28:19 demystified.
Find article here
Mt. 28:19 "...in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit."
The fact that "name" is singular at Matt. 28:19 is only further proof that "authority" or "power" was meant and not a personal name. If more than one person is involved, then the plural "names" would be used (compare Rev. 21:12). Even trinitarians admit that their God is composed of 3 separate persons. And each one of those "persons" has his own personal name (except, as we have seen, the holy spirit really does not)! Therefore, if personal names were intended here for these three different "persons," the plural "names" would have been used in this scripture.
Since it clearly means "in recognition of the power, or authority of," it is perfectly correct to use "name" in the singular. In fact, it must be used that way. We even recognize this in our own language today. We say, for example, "I did it in the name [singular] of love, humanity, and justice."
There is a famous statement in United States history that perfectly illustrates this use of the singular "name" when it is being used to mean "in recognition of power or authority." Ethan Allen, writing about his capture of Fort Ticonderoga in 1775, quoted the words he spoke when the British commander of that fort asked him by what authority Allen had captured it.
Ethan Allen replied:
"In the name [singular] of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress." - p. 100, A Book About American History, Stimpson, Fawcett Publ., 1962 printing. (Also see Rebels and Redcoats, p. 54, Scheer and Rankin, Mentor Books, 1959 printing; and p. 167, Vol. 1, Universal Standard Encyclopedia, the 1955 abridgment of the New Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia.)
How ludicrous it would be to conclude that Allen really meant that Jehovah and the Continental Congress had the same personal name and were both equally God!
To paraphrase the quote credited to trinitarian writer Reymond at the beginning of this section above:
"What Ethan Allen does say is this ... 'in the name [singular] of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress,' first asserting the unity of the two by combining them within the bounds of the single Name, and then throwing into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article ['the']."
According to this desperate attempt by trinitarians to make trinitarian evidence from Matt. 28:19, then, the same kind of statement by Ethan Allen is evidence (because of the singular "Name" and the repeated article) that The Continental Congress is equally God! (We might also consider a British expression: "in the name of God, king and country.")
Also notice how Luke 9:26 (which actually says, "when [Jesus] comes in the glory [singular] of him [Jesus] and of the Father and of the holy angels") is "first asserting the unity of the three by combining them all within the bounds of the single [glory], and then throwing into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article." But, here, of course, the angels, too, make up the "trinity." We have, then, God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy angels!
If Jesus were really saying that Jehovah, Jesus, and the holy spirit had personal names and these names must be used during baptism, he would have used the plural word "names" at Matt. 28:19. And we would see the Father's personal name ("Jehovah" - Is. 63:16; 64:8 - Ps. 83:18 and Luke 1:32 - Exodus 3:15 and Acts 3:13) and the Son's personal name ("Jesus" - Luke 1:31, 32) and the holy spirit's personal name ("?") all being used in Christian baptism ceremonies for the past 1900 years.
Honestly now, how many religions actually use the personal names "Jehovah," "Jesus," and "(??)" when baptizing? - ("We baptize you in the names of 'Jehovah,' 'Jesus,' and '???'.") Or, since a few anti-Watchtower trinitarians even claim that the singular "name" at Matt. 28:19 is really "Jehovah," how many religions really use the personal name "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh") when baptizing? ("We baptize you in Jehovah's name.") Any church that does not do so, must be admitting, in effect, that "name" in this scripture does not mean personal name!
In spite of the extreme weakness of the trinitarian "evidence" for Matt. 28:19, it is nearly always cited by trinitarians because, incredibly poor as it is, it is one of their very best trinitarian "proofs"! And it is generally hailed by trinitarians as the best evidence for the deity of the holy spirit! This certainly shows how extremely weak the scriptural evidence is for a trinity!
Thursday 21 March 2024
Time for the sphinx to answer a riddle?
James Tour Offers Three-Year Challenge to Lee Cronin to Demonstrate Legitimacy of Assembly Theory
Rice University chemist James Tour recently lectured on the aftermath of his debate at Harvard University with University of Glasgow professor of chemistry Lee Cronin over the state of research into life’s origin. During the debate, Cronin promoted his Assembly Theory as a key tool in addressing life’s origin. Tour in a recent lecture offered a three-year challenge to Cronin. If Cronin can demonstrate that Assembly Theory provides any insight into life’s origin, Tour pledged to remove all his videos critiquing origins research and never publicly discuss the topic again.
Background
The three-year challenge is an extension of Tour’s 60-day challenge to ten leading origins researchers to demonstrate that they have meaningfully addressed any of the most fundamental challenges to explaining life’s origin through natural processes. None of the experts even attempted to argue that anyone’s research had achieved any significant results. The ten were all invited to Harvard to respond to Tour’s critique of their field, but none accepted except Cronin. And Cronin would not participate unless Tour agreed to several restrictions.
Tour was not allowed to speak during the dinner conversation unless he was asked a question. Tour also had to stop speaking if he was interrupted, and he could not interrupt anyone else who spoke. Despite these restrictions, the outcome of the debate illustrated why the other nine experts were wise in not showing up.
Tour demonstrated why no one has any understanding of the most fundamental challenges in explaining how life originated. Tour also predicted that Cronin would not even discuss the chemistry. At this point, Cronin could have adjusted his talk to prove Tour wrong by explaining how he or others have progressed even a tiny bit in addressing at least one of the cited problems. Yet as predicted, Cronin did not discuss any chemistry or other relevant topic. Instead, he presented his Assembly Theory, which offers no explanation for any stage in an origin-of-life scenario.
The Danger of Drinking and Tweeting
During Tour’s recent lecture, he described his continued interactions with Cronin. Of particular note, Cronin expressed great displeasure over Tour quoting his October 28, 2021, tweet where he stated that “Origin of life research is a scam.” On Twitter a scientist asked Cronin why. Cronin responded by stating “because no one is really trying to actually answer the question or think[s] it can be done.”
After Tour publicly quoted Cronin’s assessment of the field, Cronin responded by claiming he was speaking “tongue-in-check.” Later, Cronin stated that “he had too much to drink” before he stated his view. Eventually, he explained his statement, presumably while sober, as follows:
The scam is: if we just make this RNA, we’ve got this…Let’s now make this other molecule. And how many molecules are going to be enough? …go back to Craig Venter, when he… said, “I’ve invented life.” Not quite. He facsimiled the genome from this entity and made it in a lab…But he didn’t make the cell. He had to take an existing cell that has a causal chain going all the way back to LUCA. [The last universal common ancestor, LUCA, is not the first life on Earth. It’s the latest ancestral form to all existing life.]…But it’s remarkable that he could not make a cell from scratch. And even now today, synthetic biologists cannot make a cell from scratch. Because there’s some contingent information embodied outside the genome in the cell….So, there’s lots of layers to the scam.
Tour also described how Cronin did not agree with the questions included in his 60-day challenge. Instead, Cronin believes research should start with a cell and then study how evolution refined the information. Cronin’s comments inspired the three-year challenge for Cronin to demonstrate how his theory could provide any insight into life’s origin, starting wherever he desires. Based on recent critiques of Assembly Theory, the public has little to fear about losing access to Tour’s content.
Hector Zenil Smackdown
Smackdown
Cronin has generated a great deal of hype around Assembly Theory, suggesting that it represents a monumental scientific breakthrough, as illustrated by several headlines:
“Assembly theory puts chemistry centre stage to explain molecular complexity and life’s origins”
“‘Assembly Theory’ unites physics and biology to explain the universe”
“Assembly Theory: Bold New ‘Theory of Everything’ Could Unite Physics and Evolution”
“Assembly Theory: A New Theory of Everything?”
The exaggeration of the importance of Assembly Theory has resulted in concerned responses by such experts as data scientist Hector Zenil who is an associate professor at the School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences at King’s College London. Zenil is a world-class researcher in computational analyses of biological systems, so he is as qualified as anyone to assess the relevance of Assembly Theory to research into life’s origin. Zenil felt so disturbed by the excessive hype that he appeared on Tour’s podcast to expose Cronin’s extreme negligence in so grossly misrepresenting the significance and originality of his theory.
In the interview, Zenil explained how Assembly Theory is nothing more than an outdated compression algorithm. It not only provides no insight into life’s origin, but it offers nothing of value in any field of science. In his article “The 8 Fallacies of Assembly Theory,” Zenil summarizes his assessment as follows:
We argue that the authors’ marketing and promotional activities, deployed in service of what we think is a fallacious concept and a poorly examined methodology, are unfortunate and scientifically irresponsible.
Cronin’s lauding of Assembly Theory was the best that the mainstream scientific community had to offer in response to Tour’s grim assessment of the state of origins research. Given the theory’s vacuous nature, the public has a right to hear the truth that the best description of scientists’ understanding of how life could have emerged through natural processes is clueless.
Wednesday 20 March 2024
No end in sight for catholicism's Civil war?
Franciscans in Germany elect openly gay priest as new superior
The 300-member Franciscan province of Saint Elisabeth in Germany has elected as its new superior Father Markus Fuhrmann, who a few weeks ago publicly came out as homosexual.
In an interview with MK-Online, the official news website of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, Fuhrmann explained why he went public with his homosexuality.
“If I am gay myself, then I want to show that I can also be part of the Church in this ministry. That's important because it's not supposed to be like that in the Church. Unfortunately, there is too much institutional hypocrisy in our Church,” he said.
In addition, the new Franciscan superior said that he “personally supports the efforts of the Synodal Way, I am in favor of a critical rethinking of celibacy in the priestly way of life and I am in favor of women having access to ordained ministries.”
The Synodal Way is a controversial multi-year process that began in December 2019 and involves bishops and lay people from Germany to address issues such as the exercise of power, sexual morality, the priesthood, and the role of women in the Church, issues on which they have expressed, publicly and on various occasions, positions contrary to Catholic doctrine.
Asked about the fact that his Franciscan brothers knew of his homosexuality at the time of his election, the new German superior said that "it was very good for me to know that this is very positive for the brothers."
He added, “I get a lot of encouragement, and maybe that spark of appreciation can spread to other areas of the Church. I think that's good.”
Fuhrmann was born on August 9, 1971, in Hannover, the capital of Lower Saxony, Germany. He made his simple vows in 1998 and his solemn profession in 2003. He was ordained a priest on May 7, 2005.
In Cologne, part of Saint Elizabeth Province, he ministered to the indigent, and before his election, he served as provincial vicar.
Regarding his future work, the new Franciscan superior in Germany told MK-Online that "a big change is imminent, and I want and must shape it together with the brothers."
The Church's teaching on homosexuality
Catholic teaching on homosexuality is summarized in sections 2357, 2358, and 2359 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The Church teaches that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided
As the catechism explains, “Tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and this inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”
The catechism states, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”
Providing further guidance, the catechism says, “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”
Deuteronomy32:39 demystified.
No Other god/God - Deut. 32:39
Translators have different interpretations here. The usual trinitarian translation has God (YHWH) saying something like this:
“See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.” - KJV.
Thus they say that the Word cannot be called 'a god' since God (YHWH) has no god beside Him.
But some trinitarian translators have rendered it this way:
“See ye that I alone am, and there is no other God besides me: I will kill and I will make to live: I will strike, and I will heal, and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.” - Douay.
“Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal; Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.” - NKJV.
“Don’t you understand? I am the only God; there are no others. ….” - CEV.
“Now, see that I, and only I, am God! There is no other God! ….” - ERV.
“See, I am the only God. There are no others.” - God’s Word.
“See now that I alone am He; there is no God but Me.” - Holman Christian Standard Bible.
In these renderings there is no other God, but that would not rule out the fact that other ‘gods’ may be with Him.
…………………….
Even if you choose the “no god with [or besides] me” interpretation, it is not necessarily a trinitarian ‘proof.’ It has to do with the context of God’s statement here. Here it is in context:
32:15“But Jeshurun [Israel] grew fat and kicked— You are grown fat, thick, and sleek—
Then he forsook God who made him, And scorned the Rock of his salvation. 16 “They made Him jealous with strange gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger.
17 “They sacrificed to demons who were not God, To gods whom they have not known, New gods who came lately, Whom your fathers did not dread. 18 “You neglected the Rock who begot you, And forgot the God who gave you birth. ….
21 “They have made Me jealous with what is not God; They have provoked Me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation, ….
39 “See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.” - NASB.
……………
God (YHWH) here has been consistently speaking of Israel’s love affair with false gods. Obviously none of these are acceptable to God - none of these are “with” Him nor are anything compared to the True God. So it is probable that the verse in question is speaking of false gods only.
This does not mean that God does not call God-appointed persons (including men and angels)‘gods.’
The majority, if not all, recognized scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course) admit this. These include scholars from the early centuries of Christendom until now. Some of those I have found are:
"In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title ‘god’ ... or be called ‘son of God’.” - footnote for Ps. 82:1.
And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this trinitarian study Bible tells us: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king ..., it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).” - The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:
“The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’.” - Vol. 3, p. 187.
The highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine tells us:
“The word [theos, ‘god’ or ‘God’] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34” - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament says for John 10:34-36:
"Is it not written in your law. In Psa. 82. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God? Sanctified. Set apart." -
And Barnes’ Notes tells us in commenting on John 10:34, 35:
The scripture cannot be broken. See Matthew 5:19. The authority of the Scripture is final; it cannot be set aside. The meaning is,
‘If, therefore, the Scripture uses the word "god" as applied to magistrates, it settles the question that it is right to apply the term to those in office and authority. If applied to them, it may be to others in similar offices. It can not, therefore, be blasphemy to use this word as applicable to a personage so much more exalted than mere magistrates as the Messiah.’ -Barnes' Notes on the New Testament
Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:
“65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28....”
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon, 1974 printing,
“430. [elohim]. el-o-heem’; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, ... x (very) great, judges, x mighty.” - p. 12, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.”
The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:
Elohim [‘gods’]: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97 7 ...”
The trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6:
“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods’; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].”
Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:
1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;
2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;
3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;
4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;
5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;
6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;
7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;
8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;
9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;
10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;
11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;
12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;
13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;
14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;
15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 & Ps. 82:6);
16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);
17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
(John 10:34-36);
18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);
19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).
20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.
23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.
24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.
25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.
26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.
27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.
28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.
(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV; David Guzik)
And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen (see DEF study note #1) and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus (p. 9, DEF study); the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”
So, it is clear that Deut. 32:39 cannot be understood to say that there are no persons called 'god' with him for angels were called gods.
However, none of those 'gods' the Israelites had recently taken up (false gods) were with Him.
Translators have different interpretations here. The usual trinitarian translation has God (YHWH) saying something like this:
“See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.” - KJV.
Thus they say that the Word cannot be called 'a god' since God (YHWH) has no god beside Him.
But some trinitarian translators have rendered it this way:
“See ye that I alone am, and there is no other God besides me: I will kill and I will make to live: I will strike, and I will heal, and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.” - Douay.
“Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal; Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.” - NKJV.
“Don’t you understand? I am the only God; there are no others. ….” - CEV.
“Now, see that I, and only I, am God! There is no other God! ….” - ERV.
“See, I am the only God. There are no others.” - God’s Word.
“See now that I alone am He; there is no God but Me.” - Holman Christian Standard Bible.
In these renderings there is no other God, but that would not rule out the fact that other ‘gods’ may be with Him.
…………………….
Even if you choose the “no god with [or besides] me” interpretation, it is not necessarily a trinitarian ‘proof.’ It has to do with the context of God’s statement here. Here it is in context:
32:15“But Jeshurun [Israel] grew fat and kicked— You are grown fat, thick, and sleek—
Then he forsook God who made him, And scorned the Rock of his salvation. 16 “They made Him jealous with strange gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger.
17 “They sacrificed to demons who were not God, To gods whom they have not known, New gods who came lately, Whom your fathers did not dread. 18 “You neglected the Rock who begot you, And forgot the God who gave you birth. ….
21 “They have made Me jealous with what is not God; They have provoked Me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation, ….
39 “See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.” - NASB.
……………
God (YHWH) here has been consistently speaking of Israel’s love affair with false gods. Obviously none of these are acceptable to God - none of these are “with” Him nor are anything compared to the True God. So it is probable that the verse in question is speaking of false gods only.
This does not mean that God does not call God-appointed persons (including men and angels)‘gods.’
The majority, if not all, recognized scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course) admit this. These include scholars from the early centuries of Christendom until now. Some of those I have found are:
"In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title ‘god’ ... or be called ‘son of God’.” - footnote for Ps. 82:1.
And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this trinitarian study Bible tells us: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king ..., it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).” - The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:
“The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’.” - Vol. 3, p. 187.
The highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine tells us:
“The word [theos, ‘god’ or ‘God’] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34” - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament says for John 10:34-36:
"Is it not written in your law. In Psa. 82. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God? Sanctified. Set apart." -
And Barnes’ Notes tells us in commenting on John 10:34, 35:
The scripture cannot be broken. See Matthew 5:19. The authority of the Scripture is final; it cannot be set aside. The meaning is,
‘If, therefore, the Scripture uses the word "god" as applied to magistrates, it settles the question that it is right to apply the term to those in office and authority. If applied to them, it may be to others in similar offices. It can not, therefore, be blasphemy to use this word as applicable to a personage so much more exalted than mere magistrates as the Messiah.’ -Barnes' Notes on the New Testament
Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:
“65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28....”
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon, 1974 printing,
“430. [elohim]. el-o-heem’; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, ... x (very) great, judges, x mighty.” - p. 12, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.”
The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:
Elohim [‘gods’]: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97 7 ...”
The trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6:
“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods’; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].”
Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:
1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;
2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;
3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;
4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;
5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;
6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;
7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;
8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;
9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;
10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;
11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;
12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;
13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;
14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;
15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 & Ps. 82:6);
16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);
17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
(John 10:34-36);
18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);
19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).
20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.
23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.
24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.
25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.
26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.
27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.
28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.
(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV; David Guzik)
And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen (see DEF study note #1) and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus (p. 9, DEF study); the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”
So, it is clear that Deut. 32:39 cannot be understood to say that there are no persons called 'god' with him for angels were called gods.
However, none of those 'gods' the Israelites had recently taken up (false gods) were with Him.
Posted by tigger2
The cell membrane vs. Darwinism's Simple Beginning.
Secrets of Active Transport Become Visible
Active transport — the ability to move molecules against a concentration gradient — is one of the key distinguishing features between life and non-life. Passive transport, as with osmosis, we know by experience: a fluid will naturally spread through a semipermeable membrane from a region of high concentration to one of low concentration until the concentration is equalized. That’s why bromine tablets in a spa will spread from the filter out into the water. It’s why wildfire smoke will leak into a room through any cracks in the wall, but not out. It would take Maxwell’s Demon to combat this natural tendency which follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Life cannot operate on the principle of osmosis. A cell with a passive osmotic membrane will die. Cells need to actively bring in or expel substances, often forcing them against a strong concentration gradient. They need to maintain pH homeostasis regardless of conditions outside, often pumping in cations like Na+, K+, Ca2+and Mg2+ or anions like chloride Cl– even when the interior already has a much higher concentration than the exterior. By osmosis, these concentrations would quickly equalize and life would stop. In a real sense, life involves a constant battle against thermodynamic entropy, using energy to combat what natural forces would do.
Unnatural Selection
Biochemists have long known about the existence of specialized membrane channels where active transport takes place, and knew they were highly efficient, but how they operated was long a mystery. Roderick MacKinnon was one scientist who began to figure out the mechanisms of active transport in the 1990s. He won the Nobel Prize in 2003 for his discoveries about “selectivity filters” within ion channels that permit some molecules to pass but not others. Since then, advances in super-resolution microscopy have been revealing details at near-atomic scales about what might be dubbed “unnatural selection” inside these channels.
Membrane channels are often named according to the molecules they transport: anion or cation channels, sodium channels, potassium channels, chloride channels, aquaporins (water channels), and others. Let’s examine the inner workings of one chloride channel, about which scientists’ knowledge has been updated recently. We can share the excitement of discovery about how its “selectivity filter” determines which ions are allowed to pass. As a teaser, consider that the selectivity filter of a potassium channel is much smaller than the width of a potassium ion, yet it can transport 100 million ions per second!
The CFTR Chloride Channel
Last month in PNAS, Levring and Chen announced the “Structural identification of a selectivity filter in CFTR,” a chloride channel responsible for fluid homeostasis in epithelial tissues. It’s called CFTR (Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane conductance Regulator) because of the fatal disease that occurs when genetic defects hinder passage of chloride ions. At the other extreme, cholera makes the channel too indiscriminate, leading to the diarrhea that causes dehydration and death. Kidney disease can also result from defective CFTR channels. This is not a part to mess with!
The shape of CFTR looks like a curved cornucopia with a narrow constriction inside. Notice how the authors identify precise amino acid residues (indicated by a letter and a position number) along the channel path that interact with the chloride ions passing through:
In this study, we identify a chloride-binding site at the extracellular ends of transmembrane helices 1, 6, and 8, where a dehydrated chloride is coordinated by residues G103, R334, F337, T338, and Y914. Alterations to this site, consistent with its function as a selectivity filter, affect ion selectivity, conductance, and open channel block. This selectivity filter is accessible from the cytosol through a large inner vestibule and opens to the extracellular solvent through a narrow portal. The identification of a chloride-binding site at the intra- and extracellular bridging point leads us to propose a complete conductance path that permits dehydrated chloride ions to traverse the lipid bilayer.
Diagrams of the interior show a chloride ion making electrostatic contacts with amino acid residues on its traverse, as if running the gauntlet through armed guards that each ensure it has a valid permit to pass. The structure “encloses a continuous conduit across the membrane for chloride to permeate down its electrochemical gradient.” Each chloride ion is hydrated with a water jacket but must remove its jacket on the way through:
Hydrated chloride enters the inner vestibule from the cytosol through a lateral portal between TMs [transmembrane domains] 4 and 6…. Chloride remains hydrated in the inner vestibule and is stabilized by a positive electrostatic surface potential. The width of the vestibule tapers down and converges at a selectivity filter, where only dehydrated chloride can enter. Dehydrated chloride moves into this selectivity filter, stabilized by interactions with G103, R334, F337, T338, and Y914 and rehydrates upon exit into the epithelial lumen through a narrow lateral exit between TMs 1 and 6.
Precision Authentication
How does the channel filter out other anions? Fluorine (atomic number 9) is smaller than chlorine (atomic number 17), so why doesn’t it slip through? The authors tested the authentication ability of CFTR by means of amino acid substitutions. They confirmed that four residues in the channel perform a qualification test on incoming anions as they dehydrate:
As was previously reported, and consistent with permeating anions having to dehydrate, wild-type CFTR exhibits a lyotropic permeability sequence, with relative permeabilities inversely related to the enthalpy of dehydration … Upon R334A, F337A, T338A, or Y914F substitution, the relative anion permeabilities were all altered, albeit to different degrees, consistent with previous work.
Figure 5 in the paper shows a chloride ion being inspected by four amino acid residue “cops” on four sides. A rogue molecule is not going to pass! The precision of this filter is astonishing. How much mutation could the system tolerate without breakdown? And how many accidents built this filter by chance in the first place? Details in the following quote will not be on the quiz, but to get a feel for the complexity involved, look at how many residues participate in authenticating chloride ions as they run the gauntlet:
Previous mutational work has identified a plethora of residues, many are arginine and lysine, that influence CFTR ion selectivity and/or conductance. Mapping these residues onto the CFTR structure indicates that basic residues, including K95, R104, R117, K190, R248, R303, K335, R352, K370, K1041, and R1048… are positioned along the cytosolic and extracellular vestibules, with their side chains exposed to solvent. Different from the residues that directly coordinate chloride [the selectivity filter], the function of these arginine and lysine residues is to stabilize the partially hydrated anions through electrostatic interactions and to discriminate against cations.The side chains of Q98 and S341 also face the cytosolic vestibule to form anion–dipole interactions with chloride and contribute to ion selectivity. R334, positioned at the extracellular mouth of the pore, plays a dual role in forming the selectivity filter and attracting anions into the pore through electrostatic interactions. Many other functionally important residues, including P99, L102, I106, Y109, I336, S1118, and T1134…, do not directly interact with chloride. Instead, they form a second coordination sphere of [the selectivity filter] that likely contributes to structuring [selectivity filter] residues with the appropriate geometry to coordinate chloride.
Airport Analogy
Think of these other “important residues” as part of the “coordination sphere” at an airport. The entire structure serves the purpose of narrowing down the flow of passengers to the “selectivity filter” of X-ray machines that inspect passengers and their baggage. The entire superstructure is necessary and must have been planned with the appropriate geometry and personnel to guide the passengers to the inspection site, even though the X-ray machine is as narrow as a human.
TSA workers at airports could never boast of this much quality control in their authentication protocols. And human workers have eyes and minds to think about what they are doing! The CFTR channel operates automatically in the dark, by the delicate “touch” of electrostatic interactions within a precisely structured narrow passageway within the coordination sphere. One source says that CFTR conducts millions of chloride ions per second! The TSA could learn something about efficiency here, as many of us airline passengers could attest.
Speaking of touch, my next article will discuss some other channels that respond when contacted — the so-called mechanosensitive channels.
Useless Darwinese
Did CFTR evolve? Because the CFTR channel has some similarities to other chloride channels like CLC, the authors glibly surmise that it “uniquely evolved from a family of active transporters,” assuming that “unrelated ion channels have evolved to select and conduct chloride using common chemical strategies.” Such a narrative gloss is not only useless, it makes no sense. A strategy implies foresight: seeing a need and designing a solution. While some frequent flyers might be tempted to smirk that TSA strategies seem mindless and unguided, elaborate structures like CFTR channels that operate extremely efficiently and accurately with low tolerance for alteration look engineered. They had to work from the start. Without those precisely placed amino acid residues already present at the right spot within a larger coordination sphere, there would be no authentication, and active transport would stop. The alternative is disease and death. Our uniform experience confirms that elaborate, efficient strategies that work — employing irreducibly complex structures with multiple coordinating parts supporting the function — are always products of intelligent design.
More on why I.D and Darwinism just are never going to be a couple.
Evolution Falsified? Rope Kojonen’s Achievement
If mainstream evolutionary theory can account for the eye of an eagle, does it make any sense to say that intelligent design is also needed? Our peer-reviewed paper, “On the Relationship between Design and Evolution,” in the journal Religions considers that and related questions. The paper is a critical appraisal of theologian Rope Kojonen’s book The Compatibility of Evolution and Design. This is the final installment of a 15-part occasional series on the subject. As we’ll see here, despite Kojonen’s thoughtful attempt to harmonize evolution and design, he nonetheless inadvertently sets the table for the rejection of mainstream evolutionary theory. Similarly, his model is no ally to thinkers who want the ID movement to accept only versions of design that are compatible with mainstream evolutionary theory.
Kojonen’s Task
The heart of Kojonen’s book is an attempt to reinvigorate a biology-based design argument that is compatible with mainstream evolutionary theory. That is, he accepts evolutionary explanations of the rise of flora and fauna, yet he alsoargues that this same flora and fauna provides empirical evidence of intelligent design. At first blush, this sounds like a violation of Ockham’s razor. If natural selection and random mutation are up to the task, what ground is there to say that an intelligent agent is also needed?
Kojonen’s task, then, is to show that “design and evolution” better explain biological complexity than does evolution on its own. He argues that his conception of design adds to evolution’s explanation of biological complexity. If design adds little or nothing, then it is of little account and should be shaved away by Ockham’s razor. By contrast, if design adds notable explanatory insight, then it should be retained.
Kojonen believes that his particular conception of design rises to the challenge. He argues that design helps evolution succeed. In this collaborative model, God directly designed the laws of nature, which in turn gave rise to special preconditions that enabled evolution to produce biological form and function. As we explain in our article:
In chapter four, Kojonen marshals various arguments to show that the preconditions of evolution must be designed if evolution is to be successful (as he believes it to be). The deck must be stacked in advance. In particular, fitness landscapes must be finely tuned ahead of time in order for evolutionary processes to successfully produce biological complexity and diversity. Kojonen believes that it is implausible to think that evolutionary processes can account for flora and fauna without these special preconditions. To make his case, Kojonen cites the work of Andreas Wagner, William Dembski, and others on protein evolution, evolutionary algorithms, structuralism, and the like. For Kojonen, these thinkers’ arguments powerfully show that evolutionary processes need prior “fine-tuning” of fitness landscapes (Kojonen 2021, pp. 97-143, esp. pp. 109-23). Thus, “evolution and design” is superior to “evolution alone.”
The Heart of the Matter
This is a key way that “design” adds value to “evolution.” Yet is there empirical evidence that these fine-tuned preconditions and landscapes exist? If so, then there are good grounds for Kojonen’s particular conception of design. If not, then his view of design falls short. As we explain:
Kojonen situates design precisely in those fine-tuned preconditions which yield smooth fitness landscapes that allow evolution to succeed. His case for marrying design with evolution therefore depends on the existence of this fine-tuning. So, it is crucial to assess whether this fine-tuning is real. And this question can be assessed scientifically: are fitness landscapes smooth? Are there open pathways between functional proteins, for example? Or are there impassible barriers between such proteins?
Alas, this is where the dike breaks. As we show in our article — and in previous posts — there is no good evidence for fine-tuned preconditions and smooth fitness landscapes (as Kojonen envisions them). Indeed, there is extremely strong evidence against such things.
Why is this significant? We explain:
Kojonen’s model may have devastating implications for mainstream evolutionary theory. Recall that the heart of his proposal is that evolution needs design (in the form of fine-tuned preconditions). Evolution on its own is insufficient to produce flora and fauna. But if we are correct that Kojonen’s conception and justification of design are flawed, then it follows — by his own lights — that evolution is impotent to explain biological complexity. Kojonen’s own account of the efficacy of evolution depends upon the success of his case for design. But if the latter stumbles, then so does the former. In a startling way, Kojonen has set the table for the rejection of evolution. If he has failed to make his case for design, then he has left readers with strong reasons to abandon mainstream evolutionary theory. The full implications of this striking result warrant further exploration.
Kojonen’s model provides yet another significant reason to reject evolutionary theory. Of course, the general falsity of evolution is not the focus of the argument in our paper per se; it is nonetheless a direct implication of the failure of Kojonen’s model. Readers who take his case seriously will realize that he has given a beautiful account of how to falsify evolutionary theory. Kojonen mounts a sophisticated argument — based on evolutionary algorithms, convergence, structuralism, and the like — that evolution is impotent on its own to explain biological complexity. It requires design. If he is correct, then evolution cannot succeed without design. And if we are correct, there is no such design. The inescapable conclusion is that evolution does not succeed.1
No Ally of Accommodationism
We bring our long series to a close on a note of current relevance to the ID community. As members of this community know, some thinkers actively call for advocates of ID to accept only versions of design that are compatible with mainstream evolutionary theory. They believe that ID will only stand a chance of success if it accepts conventional thinking. Naturally, advocates of this view may be tempted to see Kojonen’s model as an ally in their quest.
But the reality is quite different. Kojonen’s argument is that mainstream evolution on its own is insufficient to explain biological complexity. Hence, he argues that designed laws and preconditions are needed. His claim about the impotence of evolutionary theory is hardly the received view among evolutionary biologists. (At least, this is true in their public-facing statements; in private, one sometimes hears great cause for concern.) Indeed, many evolutionary biologists say they reject design precisely because they think evolutionary processes are fully sufficient. Why else would they accept the theory? So, even when Kojonen’s model is taken on its own terms, it runs against the grain of mainstream evolutionary thought. Thinkers who petition the ID movement to accept evolutionary theory and who see Kojonen’s model as an aid to their cause have not understood the actual contours of the debate. Kojonen’s model is no ally of accommodationist versions of intelligent design.
Moreover, if our criticisms of Kojonen’s model are correct, then he has, in effect, falsified mainstream evolutionary theory. Far from bringing people into the evolutionary fold, Kojonen has done science (and ID) a great service by showing them why they should pursue a richer, more thoughtful path.
Notes
Strictly speaking, Kojonen’s attempt to harmonize “design” and “evolution” does not per se require fine-tuned preconditions. He argues, for example, that his model is compatible with divinely guided mutations. (See, for example, Kojonen’s response to David Glass in Kojonen, “Response: The Compatibility of Evolution and Design,” Zygon 57 (2022): 1024–36.) Be that as it may, in CED, Kojonen strongly emphasizes fine-tuned preconditions (CED, p. 63-68, 119-33, 156-74). This is the centerpiece of his model. Yet insofar as this conception fails, it’s not clear that Kojonen succeeds at showing how “design” and “evolution” are compatible. And surely this is a desideratum: whether “design” and “evolution” are reconcilable is closely tied to how they are to be reconciled. Second, if his model allows direct divine tinkering with mutations, it’s also unclear that his view of evolution is consistent with “mainstream” evolutionary theory. As such, it’s unclear that his model reconciles mainstream evolution with design. Third, even setting aside these two criticisms, Kojonen’s model, in its various conceptualizations, does not seem to escape our deeper epistemological concerns, which we have described in our original paper (Section 7) as well as here and here.
Tuesday 19 March 2024
Monday 18 March 2024
Catholicism's civil war rages on?
How Catholics Celebrate Pride: Jesuit Pastor Defends Pride Mass Against Protests
So much negative news regarding Pride seems to have arisen this year. For this final week of Pride Month, we are instead highlighting, in a series of posts titled “How Catholics Celebrate Pride,” all the good ways that the people of God are celebrating queerness and advocating for equality. Some of the content will be highly visible news events. Other bits will be the more local, somewhat quieter, but no less significant actions of pro-LGBTQ+ Catholics in their parishes, schools, and communities.
At Holy Trinity Church in Washington, D.C., the pastor, Fr. Kevin Gillespie, SJ, affirmed the parish’s commitment to its LGBTQ+ ministry after right-wing activists tried to have its 3rd annual LGBTQIA+ Pride Mass cancelled. Gillespie issued a brief statement:
“This celebration is an expression of our parish’s mission statement TO ACCOMPANY ONE ANOTHER IN CHRIST, CELEBRATE GOD’S LOVE, AND TRANSFORM LIVES. Our LGBTQIA+ ministry is a response to the Holy Father’s call to go out to the margins. Our celebration of Pride is not celebrating personal vanity, but the human dignity of a group of people who have been for too long the objects of violence, bullying and harassment. Our parish reaches out to LGBTQIA+ people as it reaches out to all Catholics in our area.”
The Pride Mass was celebrated as scheduled on June 14 with more than 250 people joining in person, uninterrupted by the small group of protestors gathered outside the church. Petula Dvorak, a columnist for The Washington Post, wrote about attending the Mass and conversing with some of the queer faithful there. Dvorak told the story of Joseph Chee
“Chee, who went to Catholic school, who studied Carmelite theology, who belonged to conservative political groups and who knew for a good part of his 30 years that he was gay, had spent years searching for his place in the world and in a church that didn’t seem to want him.
“‘I felt very alienated from all the communities that I had,’ he said. ‘I felt deeply convinced that I wasn’t supposed to leave the church, you know? But I was like, “Where is my place?”‘
“But under the leadership of Pope Francis, who last year publicly rejected judgment of gay people, Chee sensed an opening.”
Dvorak spoke to longtime parishioners and newer ones at Holy Trinity. Cerissa Cafasso, a bisexual Catholic, explained: “[At this parish] I can be myself, my full person, with no throat clearing.” Dvorak also reported:
“‘It’s ridiculous,’ said a gay man who traveled about five hours to walk up those steps of Holy Trinity, to sit in a pew and to — finally — exhale.
“He’s in his 30s, lives in a conservative town in Pennsylvania, works at very conservative organization and is only out to his family. He asked me several times to preserve his anonymity in our interview.
“Deeply Catholic, he kept trying to go to church, knowing what he knows about himself, about what those in the pews next to him think of him. ‘I wouldn’t feel welcome,’ he said.
“Ever since he accidentally found Holy Trinity’s online Mass during the pandemic (he said his mouse bumped a tab and opened the link, he called it a ‘God sighting’) he’s been attending their services, online, then in person, making that drive. Five hours each way, as often as he can.
“His mom came with him on Wednesday, and they knelt together.”
A growing number of parishes have held Pride Masses in recent years, like New York City’s Church of St. Paul the Apostle, run by the Paulist Fathers. Once again, its LGBTQ+ group, Out at St. Paul, planned to hold a Mass near The Stonewall Inn in New York City, where, in 1969, riots against police raids led to the launch of the modern gay rights movement. (Due to the park’s closure, the Pride Mass ended up being celebrated at the church.) Michael O’Loughlin reported about other parish celebrations in America:
“A parish in Hoboken, N.J., Our Lady of Grace and St. Joseph, will host a Pride Mass on June 25. In Seattle, Wash., St. Joseph Parish was scheduled to host a pride picnic on June 11, following the Saturday afternoon Mass, an event which has previously drawn scrutiny from conservative media. An art installation celebrating Pride is present again at Historic St. Paul Catholic Church in Lexington, Ky., which is intended to serve as a signal that the parish is welcoming to L.G.B.T. Catholics and their families. . .
“Meredith Augustin has helped plan the ‘Pre-Pride Mass,’ held the afternoon before the New York City’s pride parade, at St. Francis of Assisi Parish in Manhattan since its inception about a dozen years ago. The parish’s director of pastoral music and staff liaison to its L.G.B.T. ministry, Ms. Augustin said that in previous years, the Mass had attracted protesters, but the parish never considered canceling it. . .
“In Chicago, St. Teresa of Avila Parish has marked Pride for several years, the Rev. Frank Latzko told America.The pastor said that he tries to keep messages of solidarity and acceptance in his sermons all year, but the weekend of Chicago’s Pride parade, which attracts about a million spectators, counts as a special celebration.
“While there is not a special ‘Pride Mass,’ many parishioners attend Sunday Mass, at which Father Latzko delivers a topical homily, before making the walk over to the parade.”
—Robert Shine (he/him), New Ways Ministry, June 26, 2023
Hummingbirds vs. Darwin.
Ingenious Artistry in the Origin of Hummingbirds
Please see below the Abstract of my recent article which asks, “Can Neo-Darwinism Explain the Origin and Variation of the Hummingbirds?”
Abstract
Richard Dawkins is one of the leading spokesmen for the evolutionary theory’s modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism). He is in full agreement with virtually all his colleagues when he asserts that “evolution not only is a gradual process as a matter of fact; it has to be gradual if it is to do any explanatory work.” So, the entire array of the fascinatingly different 366 hummingbird species of the family Trochilidae, being “distinctly different than all other avians,” must have evolved by natural selection through — in Darwin’s words — “infinitesimally small changes,” “infinitesimally slight variations,” “insensibly fine steps,” and “insensibly fine gradations.” Many of those gradations are thought to have been due to mutations with only “invisible effects on the phenotype,” according to Ernst Mayr. However,
“Even a new mutation that is slightly favorable will usually be lost in the first few generations after it appears in the population, a victim of genetic drift. If a new mutation has a selective advantage of S in the heterozygote in which it appears, then the chance is only 2S that the mutation will ever succeed in taking over the population. So, a mutation that is 1 percent better in fitness than the standard allele in the population will be lost 98 percent of the time by genetic drift.” (Emphasis added.)
Let us apply this method to individual hummingbird species, including their sexual dimorphism, and the corresponding flower formations of their nectar-producing host plants. Together these imply coordinated inter-kingdom mutations and interactions. Five examples will be discussed in the following article: (1) the strongly curved beaks of the two species of Eutoxeres, (2) Lophornis gouldii (the dot-eared coquette), (3) Docimastes ensifer (Gould) = Ensifera ensifera (the sword-billed hummingbird), (4) Sappho sparganurus (the red-tailed comet), and finally (5) Loddigesia mirabilis (the marvelous spatuletail).
All five examples display sexual dimorphism. Now, sexual selection stands in clear opposition to natural selection. Here that is the case not only because of the fact that “conspicuously colored males preferentially fall victim to their enemies,” but also because their often astoundingly acrobatic behavior to impress the females necessitates a tremendous expenditure of energy for the show. Ontogenetically, it requires development of a strikingly showy and flamboyant plumage. In the present cases, displays by the males in color, size, and shape almost completely dwarf those of the females. (Compare with this the prime example of the phenomenon among the class Aves: the well-known peacock.)
Moreover, to evolve a special preference for brightly colored males with specially formed short and/or long decorative feathers, sexual selection presupposes the occurrence of a series of highly unusual mutations in the females. For these mutations, however, there is not the slightest evidence.
Now, let us look briefly at the species mentioned above, in reverse order. We begin with (5) Loddigesia, whose males possess two stunningly long tail feathers ending in large flat violet-blue discs (see the photo at the top of this article). To evolve in a process of continuous evolution, this would mean thousands of unknown mutations — mutations, again, with “slight or even invisible effects on the phenotype,” each new step implying the substitution of the entire population of birds. All this would have happened regularly in opposition to natural selection. The females, however, have been described as “not easily impressed” by the show of the males. So, one may ask: are there really decisive selective advantages for the survival of spatuletail populations due to changes of about 1 millionth of 1 meter or 1 thousandth of 1 mm of the male’s two tail feathers?
For each species, this immensely improbable process of continuous evolution implies thousands of mutations, with visible or invisible effects on the phenotype, each time selected with certainty by the respective females. This observation applies to (4) the “deeply forked, spectacular, long, iridescent, golden-reddish tail, longer than the length of the body,” of Sappho sparganurus (the red-tailed comet); (3) the enormously long bill distinctive of Docimastes ensifer (the sword-billed hummingbird); (2) the “long dark rufous feathers [that] on its crown form a crest” plus the “long white feathers with shiny green dots [that] make tufts that fan out and back on the cheeks” of Lophornis gouldii (the dot-eared coquette); and (1) the strongly curved beaks of the two species of Eutoxeres (the sicklebills), seemingly in coordination with the flower forms of Centropogon and Heliconia.
If neo-Darwinian theory cannot explain even differences between the hummingbirds themselves (including their sexual dimorphism), what then can we expect when it comes to the origin of the entire family of this anatomically and physiologically well-defined group of birds? From an evolutionary standpoint, we must agree with many hummingbird researchers, including the clear statement of Jillian Mock, that “the origins of hummingbirds are still a major mystery.”
With this in mind, we turn to the theory of intelligent design (ID). According to Stephen Meyer, “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” ID, writes Michael Behe, is usually recognized by “a purposeful arrangement of parts.” In what follows I argue that the origin of hummingbirds reflects brilliant, ingenious artistry, not the work of an endless number of infinitesimally small coincidences, haphazardly chained together by the “truly hideous process” of natural selection, “rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror,” etc.
In contrast with neo-Darwinism, I conclude that an absolutely ingenious artist was at work here, transcending all human abilities, ideas, and powers.
For all details and references, please see,
Isaiah ch.6 demystified.
Isaiah Saw His Glory:
A few trinitarians attempt to use Is. 6 and John 12:41 as trinitarian evidence. They point out that Isaiah "saw" Jehovah (Is. 6:5). And at John 12:41 John says that Isaiah said the things quoted at John 12:38 and 12:40 "because he saw his glory and spoke about him" - NEB. Although these few trinitarians tell us it's very clear that John 12 is all about Jesus, and, therefore, the glory of Jehovah seen by Isaiah is really the glory of Jesus --- it's not quite that "clear."
First, John 12 is not entirely about Jesus alone. We find several references in it to the Father (12:26, 28, 49, 50). Therefore, when John speaks of "his glory," he could mean either the Father's glory or the Messiah's glory.
Let's examine the scriptures in question - Jn 12:37-41 (NEB):
"In spite of the many signs which Jesus had performed in their presence they would not believe in him, for the prophet Isaiah's utterance had to be fulfilled:
"`Lord, who has believed what we reported, and to whom has the Lord's power been revealed?'
[John is quoting Is. 53:1. Is. 53 is well-known as a reference to the Messiah's suffering and dying for mankind and it also clearly shows that the Messiah is not Jehovah - Is. 53:2, 4, 6, 10.]
"So it was that they could not believe, for there is another saying of Isaiah's:
"`He has blinded their eyes and dulled their minds, lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their minds, and turn to me to heal them.'
"Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke about him."
So whose glory did John say Isaiah had seen? The glory of the Messiah (Is. 53 and other places in Isaiah) or God's glory (Is. 6 and other places in Isaiah)?
Jn 12:41 in the very trinitarian NIV Study Bible, 1985, Zondervan: "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him."* And the footnote for this verse in this trinitarian study Bible says concerning Jesus' glory in this verse:
".... The thought of glory here is complex. There is the idea of majesty, and there is also the idea (which meant so much to John) that Jesus' death on the cross and his subsequent resurrection and exaltation show his real glory. Isaiah foresaw the rejection of Christ, as the passages quoted (Is. 53:1; 6:10) show. He spoke of the Messiah both in the words about blind eyes and hard hearts, on the one hand, and about healing, on the other. This is the cross and this is the glory, for the cross and the resurrection and exaltation portray both suffering and healing, rejection and triumph, humiliation and glory."
............................................................................
* The ETRV says: "because he saw his (Jesus') glory. So Isaiah spoke about him (Jesus)." The GNB says: "because he saw Jesus' glory...." The NLV says: "Isaiah said when he saw the shining-greatness of Jesus..." The LB says: "for he had seen a vision of the Messiah's glory." Phillips says: "because he saw the glory of Christ..." And the NAB (`70) says: "because he had seen Jesus' glory...."
............................................................................
The Daily Study Bible Series: The Gospel of John, Vol. 2, by famed trinitarian scholar and Bible translator Dr. William Barclay, 1975 ed., p. 81, also tells us:
"Again and again in the fourth Gospel Jesus talks of his glory in connection with the cross. John tells us in 7:39 that the Spirit had not yet come because Jesus was not yet glorified, that is to say, because he had not yet died upon his cross. When the Greeks came to him, Jesus said: `The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified' (John 12:23). And it was of his Cross that he spoke, for he went on to speak of the corn [kernel] of wheat which must fall into the ground and die. In John 12:16 John says that the disciples remembered these things after Jesus had been glorified, that is after he had died and risen again. In the Fourth Gospel it is clear that Jesus regarded the Cross both as his Supreme glory and as the way to glory."
So we see noted trinitarian scholar Dr. William Barclay also explaining that Jesus' sacrificial death was understood by John to be Jesus' Glory. Isaiah saw that Glory (sacrificial death) and told of it in his writing (including Is. 53).
[Additional information by Timo Koonstra (Belgium):
May I add something a friend of mine discovered:
The glory referred to may well be near the Isaiah 53 passage, and even clearer just before verse 1, namely 2:13, 14 where the word glory is used three times in the LXX (doxa), twice as a verb. Since the chapter break between chapter 52 and 53 is very badly chosen, I feel this is what John had in mind.
I quote these Isaiah verses from an English translation of the LXX:
(52:13) Behold, my servant shall understand, and be exalted, and glorified exceedingly. (14) As many shall be amazed at thee, so shall thy face be without glory from men, and thy glory shall not be honoured by the sons of men. (15) Thus shall many nations wonder at him; and kings shall keep their mouths shut: for they to whom no report was brought concerning him, shall see; and they who have not heard, shall consider. (53:1) O Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
I think this fits very well with what John stated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)